3 APRIL 1841, Page 12

POSTSCRIPT

• SATURDAY NIGHT.

In the House of Commons, last night, Mr. BLACKSTONE called atten- tion to the gross bribery disclosed by the evidence before the St. Alban's Election Committee; and he mentioned a report that a compromise had taken place between the parties to the St. Alban's and the Canterbury petition—it having been bargained that if the St. Alban's petition were withdrawn, the other should not be prosecuted. He moved for the production of the evidence before the St. Alban's Committee. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE followed with an amendment, to produce also the minutes of proceedings of the Canterbury Election Committee. Was it to be borne, asked Mr. Duncombe, that a sort of Beggars' Opera was to be acted in a Committee-room of the House of Commons—that a Peachum and Lockit were to come into the Committee-room and say, ' Brother, brother, we are both in the wrong ; we shall both lose in this dispute—we know we can hang each other ; so let us shake hands and be friends ' ? " These motions called up several members of the Committees. Mr. SANFORD, the Chairman of the St. Alban's Com- mittee, supported the motion ; averring that his coadjutors were most eager and anxious to have a full investigation of the evidence. To prove that the Committee was not ruled by the Ministerial Members comprised in it, Mr. Sanford said, that the chief question which they had been called upon to decide, before the close of the inquiry, was the admissibility of evidence to prove agency ; and the decision upon that point was pronounced by five votes to two. He complained of the power which clever counsel possessed of misleading the unprofessional members of Committees ; and he suggested as a re- medy, either that a legal assessor should be appointed to sit with the members and assist them in points of law, or that the House should define the sort of evidence which should or should not be admissible. Mr. MILDMAY declared that the evidence adduced had been most partial and untrustworthy ; but he allowed that he could not place confidence in his own exemption from party-feeling, though he had the utmost desire for it. He thought that the House could not furnish the mate- rials for a proper tribunal in such cases. Mr. ROBERT CLIVE, the Chairman of the Canterbury Committee, assured the House, that whatever communications might have taken place between the lawyers engaged for the petitions, the members of the Committee had no cognizance whatever of the bargain mentioned by Mr. Blackstone : the members were most zealous to do justice. Mr. JOHN GLADSTONE declared that he was quite ignorant of the bribery at Walsall ; and Mr. JAMES said that he had been so at the time of an election at Car- lisle, in 1820, when he afterwards found that thousands had been spent on his account. A general dissatisfaction with the existing arrange- ments was expressed by subsequent speakers ; Mr. HATTER, Lord Howiex, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Mr. WAKTEY, all intimating the necessity of some change. Mr. WARLEY moved for the production of the evidence before the Walsall Committee ; and eventually the House agreed to the printing of the minutes of all the three Committees.

The House then resumed the Committee on the Poor-law Amendment BilL On the suggestion of Mr. DARBY, Lord JOHN RUSSELL undertook to modify clause 25th, which relates to the burial of paupers, so that each pauper should be buried in his own parish. Mr. PRYME moved to add a proviso, declaring that if a pauper should die in any public hospital, the Guardians of the Union shall not charge the expense of his burial upon the parish in which that hospital is situate, unless the pauper actually belongs to that parish. The proviso was rejected, by 136 to 38. Mr. WILSON PATTEN divided the House against the 26th clause, which makes casual poor chargeable upon the whole Union : the clause was affirmed, by 115 to 66. General JOHNSON next moved the rejection of clause 27th, which provides that notices of removal may be sent by post : but the clause was carried, by 130 to 69. A few other amendments were made ; and then the Committee was adjourned till Monday ; when it will resume pro forma, and agree to the remaining clauses, in order that the bill may be reprinted with the extensive alterations which have been made.